3 ms·

> For example, something like 30%-50% of the electricity we generate (okay, transform) is lost in the grid on the way to the consumer. I don't think it is that

by temac 7y ago

> For example, something like 30%-50% of the electricity we generate (okay, transform) is lost in the grid on the way to the consumer. I don't think it is that much. Plus electricity is not our main energy consumption. And most of our machines have actually a decent efficiency. And/or it is hard to optimize. ICE for example have not even progressed that much in several decades. One or two dozen % maybe? And they will also not improve much in the future. So we can not sustain by merely efficiency improvements. Because we are talking about reducing the energy consumption greatly. Like x2, 3, 4. But of course efficiency is crucially important, and part of what will be required.

carapace 7y ago
> I don't think it is that much. I can't find a good reference, and I think it's gotten better since the 70's, but yes, depending on who you ask and how you do the accounting (and which nation or region you're talking about) losses are from about 10% to as much as 70%. I'm glad you're not against improving efficiency but you should check it out, the scope for improvement just in efficiency is great. I. e., ICEs emit streamers and blobs of unburned fuel (not to mention other still-useful chemicals that instead become pollution). You can install a spark plug in your tail pipe and send 5m flames shooting out the back. People used to do it for kicks, I'm given to understand. There's a whole cottage industry of fringe-tech gadgets to atomize fuel more finely to improve cars' fuel efficiency. Or consider the refrigerator, it opens like a cabinet spilling cold air on the floor every time. We can get 2x improvement in energy consumption just though greater efficiency.